Online storage is much more complex and thus inherently volatile. Are you sure your descendants will have the means to read that M-Disc in the year 2140? How about the file system on it? JPEG or DNG format? With a printed photo, you don't have to be sure. Let's assume it even survived 120 years with its data intact. What can you realistically do to keep the digital photo through 120 years or more? Imagine you stored it on the most durable media you have, M-Disc perhaps, or whatever they advertise today. >That's because digital storage didn't exist then. In fact, I have that photo reproduced in another album of my relatives. Nothing stops you from having redundancy in printed media.
#Mylio .heic photos free#
Usenet history is disappearing, even though it doesn't take a lot of space - because it isn't in anyone's economic interest to keep it - and the same will happen to free cloud storage sooner or later. I have a couple of 20-year-old hard drives that are still mostly readable (12 bad sectors so far), and that's considered a miracle. Print media has two main advantages: It requires no equipment/software/license/electricity to use and treated properly, it has been shown to last hundreds of years. Right now it seems JPEGs will be usable forever, and that may be But cultural artificats - games and videos - are already becoming hard to preserve People only care about convenience, and I suspect a popular 3D-or-lightfield-or-something-format in the future will be similarly hard to preserve 20 years later. You might believe we've learned a lesson since then, but I don't.ĭRM formats are creeping into everything. A digitized history project in the UK made this assumption, and later worked really hard to get back at the data, is a long description, the Wikipedia entry on the BBC Domesday book doesn't go into all the details.
It may seem that way, but it's not as simple.
Now it's easier and cheaper to store media than ever before > That's because digital storage didn't exist then. I haven't found any other services and am beginning to believe I have a weird and different needs than most. I need the ability to share photos with an expansive network of families/relatives on different platforms such as Android, Windows, Mac, Linux. So far, NextCloud seems to be the best bet with PhotoSync keeping a local/cloud backup. It does not say anywhere that this is open source and I can host it myself, plugged in with a storage such as AWS S3 or Wasabi or any other cloud that I can backup/store etc. Stingle is costlier than Apple or Google's plan. The Google Photos is more because Apple has no correct implementation of sharing/collaborating between the family members. I back it up with Google One's 2TB family plan where we have a common family photos (wife, and I)and my 11-year old daughter learning to shoot.
I use Apple's iCloud with a 2TB plan as my primary. I'm not a serious photographer but I love it enough to shoot enough.
0 kommentar(er)
